Change Your Image
pierremichauville
Reviews
The Diplomat (2023)
Vulgar, unrealistic and ugly actors
One of the fundamental problem of this show is its lack of realism. The diplomatic world is a complex and nuanced environment, and the show's portrayal of it seems to be based on oversimplification and exaggeration, which detracts from the overall credibility of the series. The show also takes liberties with the way international relations work, often portraying situations that are highly unlikely or improbable, further eroding the show's credibility.
The show's use of vulgar language, sexual innuendo and unnecessary "romances" are distracting and may offend some viewers. While I'm sure Nextflix will arguethat the use of coarse language can add realism to a show, the excessive use of profanity in "The Diplomat" appears to be gratuitous and adds little to the show's overall quality. It is a cheap way to attempt to add "realism".
The acting performances in "The Diplomat" has also been called into question. Many of the actors seem to lack the depth and subtlety needed to bring their characters to life convincingly, resulting in wooden and unconvincing performances that detract from the show's overall quality. Many seem to have been chosen because of their ethnic background. Few are handsome, some are just plainly ugly.
Jack Ryan (2018)
Entertaining, but laden with clichés and ultimately disappointing
I knew nothing of Jack Ryan, so it is with an open mind that I looked forward to viewing this highly advertised series, which I did in two days.
The acting is often poor. The Jack Ryan character seems too intense, stilted, mainly showing his muscular 6 feet 2 frame and staring. His immediately boss is hardly very convincing either. I feel absolutely no interest for the love interest (Dr. Mueller). The clichés abound, starting with the fact that this dose of romance would bring a wide public to watch this flick.
The plot is reasonably good at the start, but gets more and more predictable as the season approaches its end and not very credible. Would clever terrorists, as those Lebanese are depicted earlier on, not know that cell phone frequencies are jammed during a terror bomb explosion, which they just set a bit before?
I often felt the producers were using standard tricks on me: dramatic music, long desperate looks from Suleiman's wife as she is looking for Jack Ryan's approval before answering a banal question about which side of the bed Suleiman sleeps. . .
Ah, where did Jack Ryan learn to speak Arabic? In Afghanistan? Where they speak Pashtu or Dari? Found the IP tracking scene funny. Btw, why didn't the CIA attempt to locate Suleiman just the way Ibrahim tries to track who was really on the forum?
Finally, I suppose this series makes Americans feel great (the hero is American, the clone pilot is very generous, the US president first thinks of saving innocent lives and hostages, etc.) but despite its politically correct theme (Islam =/= terror, see Jack Ryan's black boss) it still is very stereotypical. Now, the Muslims are not the only bad ones, they have company: the French. It is their racism and old boy's network in the banking system which explain Islamic terrorism (in the US with those qualifications, you had it made, not in France . . . right. . .)
Full disclosure: although not French, I watched the series in French. The dubbing is okay, although some voices seem not dynamic enough.
A Dry White Season (1989)
Caricature of a troubled time
First of all, I want to mention that I lived in South Africa for around 5 years starting in 1975. After that we all left South Africa, for no politically reasons (my parents changed jobs and I left to complete a degree in Europe).
I must say that I find the superficial depiction of South Africa (rugby, sunshine and braai vleis like an advert said in those days) realistic. I can't speak about the accents since I viewed this movie in French.
Now a series of things struck me as a caricature, excessive or incomplete. Just to name a few in the first 35 minutes...
* Pupils at the start complain that learning Afrikaans would be a second-class education (under a new plan, 50% of their education was to be in Afrikaans), they ask for the same education as whites. Well, all white pupils learned Afrikaans and obviously the Afrikaner pupils (whose parents are portrayed as the nasty or naive rulers) had their whole education in Afrikaans. (This is increasingly getting more difficult under the ANC, BTW) In fact, in those pre-globalization days Afrikaans was increasingly more important to get a good job in South Africa (Afrikaans had nearly twice as many mother-tongue speakers than English). There is an inherent contradiction portraying South Africa being run by vicious and powerful Afrikaners and then saying Afrikaans has no importance or that this is what made Bantu Education second rate. (South Africa's public schools today, now teaching far less Afrikaans, are still as dismal...) Hate is what motivated the desire to get rid of Afrikaans. (Hate can be justified. . .)
* The start of the shooting is simplified to make a caricature of the whole scene. From the details known, the police faced around 10,000 menacing people who did not disperse after being asked to do so. Neither did they do so when tear gas was shot. The mob killed at least a police dog and then started stoning the police before the police finally shot.
* I'm unaware of any very young child (like the little toddling sister) being viciously shot. The movie gives the impression that hundreds were killed during that shooting and its immediate aftermath, in fact 23 were killed among which two whites. Dr Melville Edelstein, who had devoted his life to social welfare among blacks was one of them. He was stoned to death by the mob and left with a sign around his neck proclaiming "Beware Afrikaners". Edelstein was not an Afrikaner.
* The whole story of the gardener being tortured because he's looking for his boy and, the movie tells us, having contacted a lawyer really stretches credulity. But I suppose for anyone believing that South Africa was a kind of new Nazi Germany, that's a perfectly normal leap of faith. The security apparatus was cruel and did torture but I very much doubt it tortured parents looking for their children: many parents will have been searching for their children and they were people planning far more nefarious acts... And there lies a problem: André Brink and the movie producer lead us into believing this is a truthful depiction of what happened in Soweto, but I very much suspect it is a just a liberal's impression of what could have happened if a gardener got too inquisitive.
* During the history lesson, a pupil recites that the Afrikaners vanquished all the tribes and then settled all over South Africa. (Nasty I tell you!) In fact, the story is far more complex again, a large part of South Africa was emptied by Zulu kings' wars against other tribes (but they are brave and nice) and the Boers encountered very little resistance. This whole episode of Mfecane was taught at school in those days, the pupil would have recited it. The Afrikaners were even granted land by one Zulu king (Dinuzulu) which they helped beat a rival (Zibhebhu). What? Blacks and Whites fought together, as equal allies?
* In the taxi, the driver says that Zulu, Xhosa, those differences are not important. He may well say that (ANC activist would have said that to a white), but that is far from the reality in South Africa. In fact as apartheid was falling the biggest massacres occurred between blacks of the Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the ANC. (Any major movie about that anyone?) The IFP wanted a federal South Africa while the ANC wanted a centralized Jacobine State. Today, all South Africans know for example that Zulu (Zuma) was replaced recently by a Venda (Ramaphosa). Tribal identity was and still is very important.
* In the same taxi scene, Ben Dutoit clumsily tries to show that he shares some past experiences with the driver: grew on a farm, walked the veld bare feet, etc. The driver then says that at least Dutoit could vote (unlike blacks). The Afrikaner history professor is then dumbstruck. At this stage, he is not an opponent to apartheid and, as such, he would have answered that everyone could vote but each in his homeland. That was the very base of apartheid (Transkei had just been granted its "independence"), he would have known that and believed it. André Brink's portrayal does not sound truthful to someone who lived through those days and experienced unabashed support for the regime from most whites (many English speakers also. . .)
* My attention kind of fizzled when Marlon Brando interrogated a witness in court, by now unsurprizingly either very dumb (this doctor's case) or very vicious (his bosses).
Versailles (2015)
Typical Canal+ production
It's a typical Canal+ production:
* filmed in English (presumably to help it sell, but sells less than Le Bureau des légendes filmed in French), I find this ridiculous;
* many historical errors: Louvoie has the same age as Louis XIV (very young), Colbert completely absent while he is the most important minister (but not the "Prime minister" a term never used at that time) not Louvoie, Louvoie never ambitioned the throne or any such thing;
* esthetical mistakes: Louis XIV was not so handsome, didn't have such nice hair (he lost them eraly due to disease, hence the wigs), his wife the Queen was not a slender dark lady but she was a rather short,plump, blonde!
* the story of the Queen having a black child has not historical basis (a malevolent rumor), trustworthy witnesses discount it completely, but I understand Canal+ loves this
* and of course, gay sex.